The review process runs in a blind peer review with the following conditions:

• Provide timely written feedback on the scientific merits and scientific value of the work, this is done by documenting in writing the opinions of the reviewing partners.
• Indicates whether the writing has a clear, concise, and relevant composition and rating, scientific accuracy, originality, and is attractive to readers.
• Avoiding personal comments or criticism
• Refrain from direct author contact without editor's permission
• Notify the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and provide the names of other potential review partners
• Determine scientific achievements, originality, and scope of work; shows how to improve it, and recommends acceptance or rejection when using the rating scale
• Take into account any ethical concerns, such as substantial similarities between the final manuscript and any published paper or manuscript submitted to another journal.
• Warn the editor of any personal, financial or conflict of interest and decline when reviewing any potential conflicts that exist
• Ensuring that published articles comply with journal standards
• Protects readers from erroneous or flawed research and studies that cannot be validated by others
• Be alert to failure to cite relevant work by other authors.